A Serbian Film

I'm sure you've probably all heard of it and you all know how controversial it's going to be, so, what are everybodys thoughts?

IMDB Link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1273235/

__________________
"Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?"

I've heard very little about this and can't even recall from where. Is there any way to see it legally?

I want to see it, but it will probably fail to live up to the hype.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I have the same worry for The Human Centipede.

Either way, I don't think I've ever even heard of another film from Serbia so it should be worthwhile. Looking up on it, the director mentions at SXSW: "This is a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government...It's about the monolithic power of leaders who hypnotize you to do things you don’t want to do. You have to feel the violence to know what it’s about."

I wonder if this will be anything like Martyrs in that it's anti-entertainment but still helluva lot to think about

The 12-pede has a chance to be a real masterpiece. Especially after Six proved just how horrifying three were, and with little to no gore or graphic content.

Sorry, I haven't seen Martyrs. But in general, a film that goes as far as THC is not entertaining at all for me. It just becomes very difficult to bear, and I almost shut it down a few times. Utter darkness and depravity without humor is pretty hard to cope with.

Lookit.

I've read about A Serbian Film. I know, more or less, some of the worst things that happen in it. And all I can say is that it really is beyond the pale. I'm sorry that the filmmakers have clearly gone through some messed up stuff (I'm not just saying that -- they've lived through some terrible times by all accounts), but inflicting it on others this way isn't really art, it's some weird, depressing pathological need, I suppose.

I've been meaning to write about this sort of film for awhile, though. Basically, I don't care how well shot this film is, or how genuine the feelings from which it sprang. It's wrong. It's disgusting. There are standards of decency and humanity out there, even if some people don't always recognize them, or use the shield of "art" to try to smuggle them in amongst more thoughtful depictions of terrible things. I have no time or patience for it.

I disagree for a very simple reason. It takes us to our limits. The limits of what we can tolerate in ourselves and in others, and it does it without any harm (except maybe psychological). Reaching my limits is an amazing experience. Sublime is a good word for it. When you see something that really horrifies you and changes your whole outlook on what life is. It adds to your reality in such a substantial way when you're moved by this kind of thing. The flowers are all the much brighter for me because of films like 'A Serbian Film'.

No need to answer, Yods. Today has been a long day.

I'm not gonna make a big argument of it, but I do think this is pretty much the only defense of such things("takes us to our limits"). The problem I have with this is that, under this thinking, everything is art, which is kind of like saying that nothing is. Watching someone use the bathroom would "take me to my limits," too. Watching someone torture a small animal would do the trick, as well. I would hesitate to call either "art."

So, I just don't buy into it. If you want to insist that it's technically art, that's fine. Maybe it is, in a very hollow, meaningless sense of the word. But if it is, it's real sh*tty art. It's art in the same way hateful propaganda can still be art. Whether or not such a thing is technically art is less important than whether or not it really is depraved, art or not.

I don't think seeing something that horrifies you to that degree is really a form of growth. I see what you mean about the good things seeming better, but you can justify some pretty twisted actions based on that. Hell, it's the exact same justification given by Jigsaw in Saw.

Well no. Now we're arguing about Duchamp and Malivich and all dat. Whole different animal that argument. I don't think that has anything to do with "limits".

I meant the limits of what I can handle physically. Like to the extreme. I think you get it with the Jigsaw reference, but I would never take this outside of the medium. That's why it's so powerful and invaluable.

I never called it art either, though 'A Serbian Film' prolly will be quite artistic in its way.

A snuff film is different, is what I mean.

It's interesting you mention a snuff film, because I don't know if you can define the term "art" in a way that includes A Serbian Film but excludes a snuff film, without throwing a completely arbitrary clause in there.

Duchamp is a whole different animal (hey, I was just in the Warhol Museum a few weeks ago! Neat-o); depicting something low and/or ordinary is a long way from depicting something morally reprehensible, or utterly depraved.

Anyway, whether it's the limits of what you can handle, physically, videos of people hurting animals or using the bathroom or hurting themselves would still qualify, I imagine. I'm glad you'd never take it outside the medium, but I don't think it's at all impressive to take people to their limits, for the simple reason that it's not difficult. It rarely happens not because it takes skill or intelligence or insight, but because most people see no redeeming traits in it, or have standards. It's the artistic equivalent of a game of chicken. Martin Scorcese is a master chef; these guys are the ones who'll eat anything for $5.

a game of chicken

I wouldn't defend these kinds of films any farther than that.

I'd say it's pretty difficult to horrify somebody nowadays. The Human Centipede did it, while Salo didn't for the reason of the way it was shot. The most horrifying bits were shot through a window with a zoom lens. Too much distanciation that called attention to the artifice. To not just scare somebody but horrify them. The Human Centipede was extremely well-shot and lit and quite beautiful in some ways, but without these elements, it wouldn't have been as powerful.

I'm more open-minded about The Human Centipede; I feel like there's more possible metaphor there, the thing depicted is less horrendous (significantly), and as you say, there's a difference between scaring and horrifying. And it seems to involve a modicum of creativity, rather than an answer to the question "what's the most messed up thing I can imagine?"

I think, if someone wants to give A Serbian Film a pass, they really have to ask themselves if it's possible to depict anything that they would find beyond the pale. If not, then there's at least one manner in which I cannot relate to them. At that point, I feel like the power of art to go beyond boundaries and expand our minds is being abused, like using fire to burn someone rather than to warm them. It's still art, in a very hollow sense, but there's too much great art to waste time on that sort of thing.

Anyway, I said I was thinking about writing this, and this might be a nice excuse to do so, though I've got two other essays I'm still working on. I might end up cribbing some of my own bits from the last few posts for it before all's said and done.

The Human Centipede got bad reviews, but I'd go as far as giving it a 7.5/10 for sheer technical achievement alone. Not a lot of B-movie flaws in this film except maybe the initial acting. Some of the acting is spot-on however. The flaw that people see is in the depravity.

I agree completely with you expect for your final clause. Two hours of my life is worth it for me. I could either be watching a meh film or a meh film with horrifying things in it that can possibly elicit an internal dialogue about "what I would do" etc.

This only raises the question of why you would need a depraved film to elicit these internal dialogues, or to potentially change something within yourself. I have to imagine there are better ways to do this. It's like cutting yourself so your skin will be tougher. There are other ways to grow, or grow stronger, than by inflicting things on your psyche.

It also raises the question of why the choice would be between a "meh film" and a "meh film with horrifying things in it" -- we haven't run out of great films yet, and thankfully, we never will.

Well you have a catch 22 there with what sort of exposure has occurred and therefore what sort of exposure you must elicit to even have any impact. That's something I've been toying with musically for a couple years now

It's not about changing something but the experience itself. The means is rather arbitrary here. Film is just an especially easy and harmless, yet effective way of experiencing something. Think about it, I knew the entire plot of THC before I saw it, but none of that could stop me from being hand-to-mouth horrified at it when I was actually watching.

It's not some Nietzschian pure will or anything. I don't HAVE to do it. It's just accepting the possibilities of this specific "venue". You watch comedies for laughs. You watch these kinds of films to be horrified. You find out what you find funny. You find out what kinds of fiction you can take viscerally.

There're plenty of films that I "need" to watch they I sorta already "know" that I'll find meh. Like most of these for instance.

To answer the original question, my thoughts are I wouldn't watch it ever. I don't care that the writers and directors are having some sort of backlash against Serbian society. Sexual violence, torture and kids in the mix too is something beyond the pale for me, I know it goes on in the real world, it's a horrible human aberration and I don't want to see made up stuff about it.

It's an ethics v. morals debate in the end. Is it immoral to watch something like that? Yeah. Is it unethical? Of course not. I'm not drawing one or the other into prominence, as I believe both are Real and necessary to our interactions with others, but the key of resolving this situation is in the artifice of film. The old L. B. Jefferies conundrum.

nah I wouldn't say it was immoral to watch something like that or even immoral to make it. It's a film, and (hopefully) the children involved didn't have an inkling of what was going on, so I'd defend the right of adults to make it and adults to see it even though I wouldn't myself.

Well, the problem with immorality is that it's subjective and unstable. I do consider it immoral, but not unethical. Sounds like you're talking more in ethics as in "the children involved didn't have an inkling of what was going on". I mean sure they didn't, but their lives were intertwined with some so obscene at a young age. It's JUST WRONG, isn't it? How else can we describe something that's immoral? Eating aborted babies (via Three... Extremes) doesn't hurt anyone, but it's JUST WRONG.